ETD vs Aural: was Unison Flatter than each Individual string?

[David Love]

I haven't used the Cybertuner.  Technicians I know who do use it like it.
Of those who have compared the VT with the CT, a slight edge goes to the VT
for quality of calculated tuning, an edge to CT for pitch raise function.  I
think the point is that both machines are very capable of a well calculated
tuning.   I prefer the VT's concept of multiple partial sampling on each and
every note rather than calculating a scale from  fixed group of notes.  The
problem, as I see it, is in translating that calculation to a spinner giving
a target for the note.  Dean Reyburn calls the spinner a bit of an illusion.
The spinner is not what the machine really hears, but its translation of
what it hears to a target.  Sometimes the target is a moving one as well.
As in language, something is always lost in translation.  That's where, I
think, one needs due diligence to monitor the machine.

David Love
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hechler, Duaine & Laura" <dahechler@mlc.net>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: August 29, 2002 6:50 AM
Subject: Re: ETD vs Aural: was Unison Flatter than each Individual string?


David,

On recommendation from others in my area, I purchased the Cybertuner (as
I'm just starting out).

If you can get a chance, I would like your opinion of the Cybertuner vs
aural tuning ?

Thanks,
Duaine

David Love wrote:

><snip>
>
>I consider the VT to be a fairly sophisticated machine in its multiple note
>measuring of multiple partials.  Yet the changes that I thought needed to
be
>made were pretty clear.  Though I am sure that the calculated tuning would
>have passed any exam, it is also clear that the tuning was able to be
>improved upon.  The point of this being that as nice a tool as ETD's are,
>tool is the operative word.  They can easily lull you into a false sense of
>security about the level of tuning that can be achieved.  It reminded me
>(again) to pay more attention to what I hear than what I see and that there
>is often a divide between what works in theory and what works in practice.
>
>David Love
>